Misandry in our Midst, a Response to Jessica Valenti and E.J. Graff
...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all... Elie Wiesel.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when? Rabbi Hillel.
Jessica, E.J.,
No one online in any way deserves threats, or assaults for their online behavior. Perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest.
But just as there is online misogyny, there is also online misandry. And sadly, it too can be found very close to home. On your blog in fact Jessica, as well as popular mainstream feminist blogs like Pandagon, and Feministe and frequently too, at TPMCafe.
On February 27, you wrote a post here called The Feminist Sorority in which you expressed your frustration at how (my paraphrase) how the institutional feminists were alienating young women and keeping them from participating in feminism. I think the implication was that this wasn't in the long term interest of women or feminism.
Dismissing online misogyny and Sierra's experience (without even bothering to do any research on the subject, to boot) is reprehensible.
I understand that. I consider myself a feminist. Since before you were born. I have some difficulties with portions of some strains of feminism, mostly dealing with its relationship towards men, and fathers, and towards the issues of bias in the courts, and a call for a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody of children of divorce that feminists seem to reject even as they decry men for shirking their parenting and household duties. Apart from that, I probably agree with the vast majority of other feminist positions. I certainly want my daughters to grow up in a world where they do not fear threats, assault, violence, or rape, and in which they can have any career they wish without fear of discrimination. And I work towards that. When I have sought to discuss these issues at Feministing, Feministe, and Pandagon, I am invariably called a troll, a concern troll, a misogynist, an MRA, an FRA. And my posts are deleted. And I am banned. And I am mocked. And I am told I abuse women, and I abuse children, and I deserve what I got. Lots of people are told that very same thing at those very same sites. Amanda has dismissed my questions here by claiming, here, that I am a right wing troll.
On February 28, Feministing published the following post from Ann Friedman's: Today in women-as-meat news... A post that described "Yet another in an ongoing series of ads, eateries and comments that equate women and meat."
I think advertisements that overly sexualize or overly objectify women or bash them or demean them are horrible. In my house, there are products, like Bratz dolls, that my children know I will not buy them, because I do not support how they advertise to my children.
In response to Ann's post, I posted the following two comments several days apart, spanning a busy weekend.
It's related, but offtopic, but Glenn Sacks has a similar take on ads that demean men, and fathers. He has a campaign right now to convince Volvo to award their next ad campaign to a father friendly advertising shop, and not to their current ad shop that makes ads that demean people particularly fathers.
Calling attention to demeaning advertising could be an area in which feminists and fathers rights activists find common ground, and work together.
What do you think?
Posted by: jerry February 28, 2007 11:41 PM
What might be a really powerful form of synergy is if Glenn's letter writing campaign to Volvo were to include letters from women and especially from feminists.
Women : meat, Fathers : dumb, I mean this demeans all of us.
Maybe you can help?
Posted by: jerry March 1, 2007 05:26 PM
I also have a recollection, but I can't find the email at the moment, that I emailed you, Ann, and Glenn Sacks. I know that in response to my comments at Feministing, there was no reply at all. And I know that neither you nor Ann ever emailed me back. Glenn Sacks did.
So Jessica, why do you ignore and dismiss attempts for outreach? What opportunities did we all lose when interests that we all agree on were lost?
Some thought she "deserved" it, some called her complaints (about getting death threats, imagine!) "whining." Sadly, I expected to find these kinds of reactions in certain places on the internet. What I didn't expect was to find them so close to home, and from a progressive "leader" in the blogosphere, no less!
At Pandagon a few days ago, Pam Spaulding published a post Wanted: better allies, better MSM, more discussion in which she seems to be exhorting the Black Community to support the LGBT community. After all, It seems so obvious that a group that has experienced horrible discrimination would be natural allies to other groups being denied rights, as you can see, here is the problem in front of us.
And yet, at Pandagon, and Feministe, in the wake of the dismissals of the charges against the Duke Students, we have seen posts that say that the students were not innocent. That the Attorney General's statement that they were innocent, did not mean they were innocent. That as white rich kids, these guys deserved what they got.
We have even seen statements from Pandagon that what they went through, did not equate to what women experience online on the Internet! I realize we should all be weeping and gnashing our teeth over the Duke lacrosse players, who are of course! Suffering just like Emmet Till! but I just can't.
Let's compare, shall we, the plight of men who have money, who have truckloads of sympathy from people and the media, and who have defense attorneys who have turned them into saints. The plight of men who can have their day in court.
Compare that to women who are lied about, harassed, and stalked online. (via Amy Alkon).
And we have all by now seen Amanda Marcotte's bigoted, sexist post that she deleted and then lied about.
Update: Marcotte has now (1 p.m. Friday) yanked down her original post of Jan. 21, and appears also to have deleted several comments, but GoogleCache still has it for the moment. Here is its text, in the spirit of Fair-Use-ery:
Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let’s hope it takes off when they say it will so I don’t miss my connecting flight home.
In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
111 Responses to “Stuck at the airport again…..”
Further update (1:20 p.m. Friday): Here are two comments that Marcotte appears to have deleted from the original thread. The "In her part of the country" comment had already drawn criticism from readers on the LieStoppers site:
Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.
# Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Natalia, do you know the details of the case? If so, why do you think a women enthusiastically jumped into a sexual situation with men making slavery jokes at her? Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.
This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.
So E.J., what's with all of this online misandry?
I like to think of our liberal blogosphere as the reality based blogosphere. E.J., Jessica, what is the scope of a safe environment that women need online? How does that differ from a safe environment that communities of women might need to meet in the real world? Why do so many online communities of women filter out not only threats but also mere dissent? Why do so many online communities of women claim that those that dissent are trolls, concern trolls, anti-feminists, or conservative wing-nuts?
Why is it that so many online communities delete comments, ban users, disparage men and other commenters. Does that create a safe environment? Or does it create a stultified environment? Does it lend itself to progress, or to group think?
Does it lend itself to peace and justice? Or does it lend itself to hate speech and misandry?
Are the commenting policies at so many women's sites more similar to Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, Red State, Hot Air, Patterico, or are they more similar to TPM Cafe, Atrios, TAPPED, Think Progress, Daily Kos?
Recently we've seen Gwen Ifill eloquently point out that Tim Russert and David Brooks and many other white male pundits eagerly went on Don Imus and never condemned his comments.
So let me ask you E.J., and Jessica, and Andrew Golis, what's up with Amanda Marcotte? Is your silence assent with her remarks? If not, does your silence enable her? Andrew, why give her and Pandagon, a platform?
